Don't worry about it. The good thing about 'online publishing' and netbooks is that these mistakes can be caught and fixed very easily, right? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
Printable View
Don't worry about it. The good thing about 'online publishing' and netbooks is that these mistakes can be caught and fixed very easily, right? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
This is the Cochrane as per FASA.
I am curious as to your changes and why?
Not that I don't like you image, it is different enough that I am curious
http://sub-odeon.com/stsstcsmua/federation/cochrane.gif
Basic summations...Quote:
Originally Posted by AslanC
1) No deflector dish on a Federation TOS ship.
2) No impulse drive.
3) Lines look too 'movie-era' or 'TNG-era' and don't fit any other TOS asthetic.
4) Lines in the three views don't entirely match up.
5) Scale of components shot incredibly wrong.
6) Statistics and abilities given in the description text do not remotely match the ship shown.
Well you already know my feelings on those, no need to elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
What does a TOS ID look like?Quote:
2) No impulse drive.
I dunno... it looked fine to me... like a bridge between TOS and Movie Gen.Quote:
3) Lines look too 'movie-era' or 'TNG-era' and don't fit any other TOS asthetic.
Most of the Fasa ones don't.Quote:
4) Lines in the three views don't entirely match up.
Beyond me so I will trust you on this one.Quote:
5) Scale of components shot incredibly wrong.
Explain further please... I am not sure I follow what you are getting at here.Quote:
6) Statistics and abilities given in the description text do not remotely match the ship shown.
That was a minor change, though. You just need someplace to put one!Quote:
Originally Posted by AslanC
It helps if there's one THERE. Basically, though, the section on the back of the Connie, Sherman, or Surya is a good start.Quote:
What does a TOS ID look like?
Again, it shouldn't. It's supposed to be OLD in Kirk's time. The ship's lines would mesh a lot more with an LN-72 on it than the PB-32 system. (The Aaken also suffers from this).Quote:
I dunno... it looked fine to me... like a bridge between TOS and Movie Gen.
FASA's really bad about this, depending on the ship. Phasers and torp launchers are a common problem (two banks listed on this ship, none shown). The number of shuttle-bays are off. The listed measurements are completely off, etc, etc...Quote:
Explain further please... I am not sure I follow what you are getting at here.
USS Lotus Flower Class Fuel Transport
FASA 'purists' are going to hate me for this one. I started off with FASA's Lotus Flower class, then started to make it a more TOS ship (Kirk DID save the thing as a CADET after all) ... and wound up going my own way with it. I'm thinking that FASA's Lotus Flower (seen in canon in TNG) would be a later movie-era ship and NOT the class that would contain the Kobayashi Maru. :S
http://www.pixelsagas.com/forum/file...flower_192.gif
It also gives me ideas for touching up the Cochrane and Aaken...
I did feel the need to retouch the Cochrane, though. The top view wasn't quite what I wanted. I decided to just revamp the top lines completely and go from there. I'm much happier with the result, and it has a slightly more consistant feel with the rest of the ships of the era.
http://www.pixelsagas.com/forum/file...chrane_475.gif
Okay, decided to take a stab at one of Steve Long's ships, the Hellespont, instead of just reusing the name. The sizes are off (Spacedock is miserable at TOS for these things), but I kept the look based on the ship's description...
http://www.pixelsagas.com/forum/file...espont_294.gif
While I'm not a 'purists', as you call them, I don't think that's the Lotus Flower. Yes the design is of the proper era and a Federation ship, but it's not a Starfleet ship. look to canon/cannon (yeah whatever) designs of the Type-Y and other transports from ENT long, skinny, nothing at all like Earth's Star Fleet (flat and round).Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
BTW, I like the new version of the Cochrane.
Not really. We've only seen a few (the Bontany Bay model, then the two decidedly boxy ships from TAS). And, besides, this version actually matches the dimension shown on screen. FASA's doesn't. ^_^Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
Huh? What dimensions would that be? Now that you have peaked my interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
Dimensions of the Kobayashi Maru were shown on screen during the test at the strt of TWOK.
So, if (and it is an if) the KM is a member of the Lotus Flower class then the design as given by FASA is wrong.
I'd keep the FASA design as the LF class and make TFVanguard's design another class, and assign the KM to that class. Seems like the best compromise.
USS Ashanti Class Frigate
From Steve Long's 'Ships of the Original Series Era'. The measurements are, of course, off. (Steve couldn't be arsed to do any CHECKING, I guess), but the ship is as close to what I could get with what he ponied up.
http://www.pixelsagas.com/forum/file...shanti_748.gif
Really nice, but with all due respect, bashing people who are investing a lot of their time into free netbooks just because of some minor (obviously we disagree on this point) inaccuracies isn't a good idea. I can understand your frustration nontheless, doing drawings based on wrong, or even worse, several sets of conflicting figures, is annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
Actually, with Steve's stuff, it's more a frustration that it's quickly apparent that he really really hates the original series era. The guides for TNG-VOY were meticulous and accurate. But, in TOS, everything's just plain wrong - even the Enterprise herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ergi
Since it's a netbook, I just have to wonder why Steve didn't just ask a TOS fan to do the write-ups for Spacedock instead? Guess it doesn't really matter these days, though...
Actually, if you strip off the LN-64 warp engine from FASA's design (and its pylon), you've got a really nice Romulan or Klingon Frieghter from the TMP era. I'm really considering going that route with it, but once there's a consensus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Identity Crisis
I'm not necessarily a FASA purist, by any stretch of the imagination, but I have to agree with someone that this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Lotus Flower-class ship. It's a nice TOS-era freighter, and I'll probably use it, but it's not a Lotus Flower.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
As for the Kobayashi Maru, I'm of the opinion that the class of that ship changes on occasion; it's a non-existent ship, after all, and it probably changes from time to time to reflect the era that the test is given in. My objection to this ship as the Kobayashi Maru is that it seemed fairly clear from context in ST2:TWOK that she was a civilian vessel, and this is clearly a Star Fleet design.
I, uh, have some issues with his ship designs in general. They're just... not pretty.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
USS Taurus Class Cruiser
This is the last of Steve Long's original TOS-era designs (not including the pre-TOS or 'alien' ship designs). I've redone this ship a bagillion times, and never found a version I was happy with that came close to his specs and description. I finally settled on this, which keeps the TOS look but... isn't pretty, I'll admit. Ah well, I'm finally letting this one go now.
http://www.pixelsagas.com/forum/file...taurus_300.gif
Hey TFV... have you seen the "Ships of the Line" 2006 calendar?
I ask because there's one bit of artwork in there of a previously-unseen TOS-Era ship at the "Starfleet Proving Grounds."
There's no dimensions, or anything, just one oblique view, but on the off chance you'd be interested in it for this project, I thought I'd mention it.
I might be aple to scan a pic and link to it later. It might even be a "prettier" Taurus alternative... depending on whether the saucer is supposed to blend into the secondary or not.
I could definately use the scan, though the placement of the ship is going to be odd. (I know it's an NX to NCC-1701 mid-step, though... the registry would date it closer to the Baton Rouge than the mid-way point...) Please send it along.Quote:
Originally Posted by First of Two
The Taurus, though, explicitly states seperate hulls with no connection pylon, which is why she looks kinda funky there. I would have merged the underside of the saucer to the secondary hull more , myself...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
It looks like a lame kitbash. Maybe make engingeering hull more flush/conjoined with the saucer, and de-sweep the pylons (it's too TOS-y for those).
perhaps...but I kinda like her. she's ugly but functional :D
Okay, it's definitely NOT a Taurus-like ship - I finally realized that the primary and secondary hulls are one element.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
Anyway, here's a link to 2 HUGE uploaded pics - my apologies for the size and such. I'd have combined and shrunk them... except I don't know how.
NCC-1000 at Starfleet Proving Grounds
Here's a quick Cut, Paste, Shrink, and do the best I can to line the two parts back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by First of Two
Neat ship by the way.
DUDE YES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
That is a really cool looking ship.. where's it from?
I'm going to be torn there. The registration and design puts it squarely in the Baton Rouge era of starship, and conflicts directly with the USS Ranger itself. Worse, I already have the PB-32 test-bed ship as the Bonaventure...Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Huth
On the other hand, I easily see people wanting this ship speced-out, and it's a fairly nice design. So.. what do I DO with it?
Make it! :)
It is frellin' sweet!
Star Trek "Ships of the Line" 2006 Calendar. April, I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobian
Amazon.com listing
The entirety of the 2006 Calendar is devoted to TOS-Era images, since 2006 is TOS's 40th anniversary, but that seems to be the only "new" ship design in the bunch.
I think more what he's aiming for is "where the heck do I stick this puppy in the timeline" and not so much "do I draw it or not"Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
Ok, so I know that the USS Ranger is in the RPG game as a name stuck on the upside down proto-Enterprise model. Is that any more "Canon" than that? I guess where I'm going is that this might be the USS Ranger, rather than what we're using now.
Alternately, and probably less sacriligiously, kill the Bonaventure class design and replace it with this. This is the PB-32 test bed ship. The TAS episode with the Bonaventure class just had the wrong image (kinda like having the Enterprise re-use stock footage that has Phasors coming out of the Photon Torpedo launchers)
Alternately, it looks like you'd slot the basic design into the NX, Loknar, Akira type, so this ship is the Loknar analog to the Baton Rouge class and the numbering just needs to be fudged.
I personally like choice B. But hey, that's just me.
Alex
The Ranger is, AFAIK, only from the TOS ICON book and repeated in the DecTrek SOM book, and neither times is the design particularly good-looking. This one, on the other hand, looks pretty sweet.
Is there any chance i could get some higher-rez versions of the images on here? I want to do some designs of my own, and tracing the components is kinda hard at this size.
You know, i just noticed this, but according to this pic of the soyuz, the size of the back module is a little exagerrated in the schematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
Bumping this and hoping TFVanguard still populates these forums. All the images are broken here, TFV, and not all of the ships are in galleries on pixelsagas. I use these as part of my screensaver, and several are missing. Could I convince you, if you're still here, to fix the image links or put the missing ships up in a gallery somewhere so I could download them?
This message repeats across all the threads of TFV's images; just trying really hard to get his attention.